I was wondering when Israel would somehow get dragged into all of this. The topic of Israel, and whether it is evil or not, is not part of what Mr. Paul was talking about (if you like I can post an article with the speech of one of my other favorite politicians, Mr. Galloway from the U.K)

What this is about, again, is trying to put a military occupation in a frame that the occupiers can themselves understand.

Regarding the Iraq war, in terms of fighting "terrorism" the ultimate solution was political and not military, in which Petraeus cut a deal with the "terrorists" who then suddenly turned into "awakening councils" thereby removing the bulk of the insurgency and exposing a relatively small, foreign body of real terrorists who didn't operate in country in earnest until -after- the U.S took over.

One more thing in response to this little diddy;

What is and isn't accepted on the international stage, by various super-powers, has absolutely nothing to do with that pesky thing called human compassion for others and more with what benefits or advantages the situation grants the powers-that-be.

The Russian army pretty much cleaned out Chechnya in waves of ethnic cleansing since their second invasion in the late 90's, where was the outrage?

In Indonesia, we (the west) trumpeted the murder of a couple million "communists" by a military dictator who overthrew the government with our support.

Many of our so-called allies in formerly soviet asia (countries ending with "an" like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) have attrocious dictators that the U.S formed alliances with while turning a blind eye to the oppression and mass-murder carried out of any dissidents or undesirables. This is the same formula that they employed in Iraq;

1) Form an alliance of convenience

2) So long as that alliance grants benefits to the superpower (political, economic, military etc) turn a blind eye to the attrocities carried out in country

3) if it ever goes sour, which in most cases it usually does after a period of a few years, then employ one of three generally accepted methods to corect situation-

A- the "do what we want or -else-" ultimatum. FYI, this is where the U.S is on Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan right now, and my prediction is that they are probably going to replace him if he doesn't play ball the way they like. Karzai, a former oil executive has actually had a pretty good run lasting almost a decade. However, after multiple instances in which dozens of civillians were wiped out in indiscriminate airstrikes he's started to openly question and push back against U.S interests in the region which is an unforgivable sin. 

Pressure is applied, whether directly or indirectly to play ball as desired. In Iraq's case, this was largely for economic reasons and geo-politically because the war with Iran was at best continuing a stalemate and not producing any tangible results.

This started to happen in the mid to late 80's when U.S and European countries wanted to do with Iraq what was done with Saudi-Arabia- a massive influx of business for engineering firms and oil companies to build cities out of the desert and oil infrastructure. Just like what happened for Saudi in the 60's and 70's, western firms would win big in getting massive development contracts which would be paid for with petrodollars (and win the dependency of Iraqi infrastructure) on western skill. If you've any spent any time in Saudi, then you know that the majority of skilled labor is actually imported foreigners working for massive international engineering conglomerates. Things went sour when Saddam refused. He wanted to keep infrastructure, resources and skill localized and did not want to get to deep in bed like Saudi did.

Once it became clear that Iraq -would not- be another Saudi Arabia and -would not- win the war against Iran, the decision was made to sit back and wait for Saddam to carry out a blunder so big that he could be pounced on internationally, so that eventually he could be replaced with a leader or government that would do business as desired. The invasion of Kuwait gave them this exact opportunity. If Iraq had won the war against Iran, or if Saddam had opened up Iraq's economy, he probably would still be in power today with our blessing and the plight of the Kurds and all the other groups he committed genocide against would be a footnote brushed under the rug.

B- Once the ultimatum phase has passed comes the next stage- assassination/mysterious death- This includes many of the mysterious plane crashes in which presidents of south and central american nations seem to suffer. Isn't it interesting that presidents seem to be prone to die in mysterious plane or helicopter accidents moreso than the general populace, when in fact it should be the opposite as they should have the best maintenance team in country? One such example of this would be South Vietnamese president Diem, although this was intermingled with a coup.

C- Once assassination or mysterious death has failed then comes forcible regime change. In it's most benign form this is a rigged election, the intermediate level is a sponsored coup or rebellion, and the most acute form is a full blown military invasion, hello Panama and Iraq. Forced regime change always costs the most money and resources and runs the most risks, as we see today with the blowback resulting from Iran and the coup masterminded by Kermit Roosevelt in the 50's.

Yes, somehow I am not surprised that that fascist is your other favourite politician.

Galloway's attempt to send help to the terrorists (and perhaps smuggle the odd militant into the area) ran into difficulties in Egypt when it was attacked by Egyptian anti-Hamas protesters throwing stones at Galloway's Nazis:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5872129.ece

I don't need to read a speech by a fascist politician. My dad has an original record of one of Hitler's speeches (did you know that Hitler is actually very difficult to understand?). Galloway is but a cheap copy of the original.

Not for you it doesn't. I sort of figured that, Arty.

You are a hateful little opportunist. You haven't even seen the country you hate or met the people you want murdered. They have done nothing to you and you know nothing about them. I can see why the crazy uncle inspires you. He was looking for voters of your type.

Thanks man, I think you're a cool dude too. We should hang out and grab a couple beers sometime. You like football?

Yeah, totally man! I mean like, how arrogant Galloway was to think that the people of Gaza deserve basic requirements of life like food and medicine. If Hamas is so incredibly powerful that the IDF were unable to destroy it with their recent campaign of shock and awe and their only resort is to squeeze the noose tighter (preventing even sheep from getting into the country, you know those terrorists will use those sheep to get nutrients!!!) then it appears that militarily, Hamas has defeated the IDF!

I don't drink and I don't like football.

And in general you will find that I am more likely to discuss the middle east with people who actually know something about it, for examples Iraqis and Israelis, and not western liberals who think they know all the answers without even understanding the basic issues.

The Gazans get LOTS of those basic requirements from the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The blockade never stopped those goods. I posted pictures of Gaza during the blockade before. Their supermarkets are sre so well-stocked that not even "peace activists" managed to take a picture of an empthy ship.

The fascist Galloway was specifically trying to send aid to Hamas, not to the "people of Gaza", but to Hamas, and the Egyptians (both the government and the protesters) rightfully stopped him.

How arrogant indeed Galloway was to think that the terrorists who terrorise Gaza and Israel deserve aid. Galloway is a dirty fascist with no regard for Hamas' Arab and Jewish victims if he tries to help Hamas. And knowing him, it didn't surprise me in the least that while the entire world is trying to help the people living under Hamas' rule he would try to help Hamas instead.

A few pictures from Gaza after three years of the so-called Israeli blockade the media made up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4g1-HTJYEk

Of course people like Arty are more likely to base their opinions on the anti-Semitic comments made by westeners than by pictures of the actual place.

I wonder how many anti-Israel liberals have actually ever seen a real "Palestinian", apart from the odd Arab neo-Nazi claiming to be from "Palestine". I have. I shared a university dorm with a "Palestinian" and know many "Palestinians" in Jerusalem. (When I am in Jerusalem I always stay in the Arab east because the Jewish west is too expensive.) And guess what, while many do indeed like the PLO and even that fascist Arafat (nephew and heir of Hitler's Arab ally), Hamas are almost universally hated by them.

I think it should be made clear that Galloway was not trying to bring aid to the needy (if he wanted to do that, there are enough poor people in Sudan who actually need some help), and he was not trying to bring aid to a place that is starving.

He was SOLELY and ONLY trying to bring equipment and assistance to a terrorist group who are fighting a war against Palestinian Arabs and Jews.

That is why the border he wanted to cross is closed, as per the wishes of the (real) Palestinian Authority. That's why the Egyptian government insisted that he hand over whatever real aid he transported to the Red Crescent. And that's why local Egyptians threw stones at his convoi and protested his presence.

Interesting, so the people that Saddam oppressed were not "terrorized" before the US occupation? I suppose you were fine with that situation as it existed? Since Saddam was president (for life) does that exempt him from from being a "Terrorist" in the eyes of the people he tortured and abused?

It's quite easy to be the armchair quarterback that arrives on the scene at half-time, disregarding everything up to that point. Maybe you should take a longer long at Iraqi history, say 1930 to 2003. The media won't say it much, they are still trying to find a way to lose the war, but I'll bet many Iraqis have a much better outlook on this situation now and the future.

News to me, I know of no treaties making any former Soviet Asian countries allies of the US (or NATO). They have made agreements for temporary base rights. In fact many of these countries still have military ties to Russia.

I agree, where were all the people that call Bush a murderer? Where was code pink? Why is there only outrage when the US military is engaged? Maybe they are not brutal enough to get the same sympathy as the Russians get? When all the leftists in the US (and Canada) can get their message together, in a fair, even-handed way for everyone, they might get an ounce of my respect. Good point Arty glad you brought it up.

I was wondering the same thing and so went and asked.

I assure you the answer is "no".

Saddam was not regarded as exempt from being a terrorist in the eyes of the people he tortured and abused. And I spoke with actual such.

Incidentally, the tribes did not suddenly "turn" from terrorists to "awakening councils", they merely started fighting back when they noticed that Al-Qaeda and the other foreign terrorists did not fight FOR them but AGAINST them. The Sunni tribes in northwestern Iraq are not what liberals think they are. (For example, they are the most pro-American among the Iraqis, with the Kurds being pro-Kurdish rather than pro-American since the Americans disappointed them so often.)

To read the crap the AP & Reuters feed us, the only reason for the 'awakening' was cold cash.  Such is the respect they extend to the brave Iraqis pushing back against the terrorists.

Cash was important, but cash doesn't buy courage.

The tribes have also offered to send fighters to Afghanistan for the US.

Oh man. That really put me in my place. Thanks for clearing that up. You see, after you started accusing me of such things as being a "hateful little opportunist" (your latest pearl of wisdom which really hurt my feelings by the way, you big meanie) I made it a point, especially during the last little military adventure in December, to directly quote from Jewish sources, preferrably based out of Israel. Btselem is an organization based in Israel and they say the Gaza blockade is indeed hurting Gazan civillians and that:

"Despite its “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip, in September 2006, Israel continues to hold effective control of many aspects of life in Gaza, including the crossing points. This scope of control imposes on Israel responsibility for the safety and welfare of the residents there, in accordance with the laws of occupation specified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Regardless of the questions of the legal status of the Gaza Strip, international humanitarian law and international human rights law require Israel to protect civilians in time of armed conflict, safeguard wounded and sick persons, prevent deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and enable the shipment of necessary medicines and provision of an adequate standard of health. In its overall actions relating to the Gaza Strip and its residents, Israel gravely breaches the right of the residents to optimal medical care inside Gaza and access to medical care outside the area.

B'Tselem urges the State of Israel to carry out its aforesaid legal obligations and enable the residents of the Gaza Strip to exercise their right to health. To achieve this, Israel must prevent the collapse of Gaza’s medical system and allow patients requiring care to leave Gaza to receive appropriate treatment in Israel or elsewhere. "

Perhaps you should call up your Israeli comrades who work for Btselem and explain to them what "hateful little opportunists" they are?

Please provide your proof of this.

No, absolutely he was a terrorist to his own people. But if you read my above comments, I've already explained that so long as a nation is playing ball with the U.S (politically, economically or whatever is most important at the time) it's overlooked.

Supposed "allies" with the U.S on the war in terror in Uzbekistan carried out just as attrocious acts on their own populations. So long as they allowed U.S air bases in the region, those acts were overlooked. Just as, so long as Saddam was carrying out his war against Iran and there was still the hope that he would do with his economy what happened in Saudi, his transgressions against his own people were also overlooked.

Uh, huh, so these tens of thousands of armed and trained fighters were just sitting on the sidelines for years until suddenly they "woke up" to Al Qaeda?

riiiiiiiggghht

You know as well as I do, Leauki, that there was a two fold deal that occurred-

Shiite-backed militias were cleaning house in Baghdad wiping out Sunni groups one neighbourhood at a time. These groups needed a respite and realized that they couldn't fight a sectarian war as well as attack U.S and coalition troops at the same time.

So, they cut a deal. The Shiites won in that their hold on political power was largely solidified. The various Sunni groups won in that they no longer had to worry about fighting U.S forces (which you can be sure as hell they were doing before) and were now on the payroll of the U.S taxpayer which definitely helps!

Indeed. But keep in mind, these were the very same people classified as "terrorists" for several years after the invasion, and the blood of U.S forces are on their hands. Suddenly now they're the good guys and getting paid by the U.S taxpayers as well.

I'm glad you brought this up Nitro. Let's go back a bit further though, to 1917 when the British took Baghdad to "liberate" it in much the same fashion as the U.S did in 2003. That turned out reaaall  well for all parties involved.

Arguing with Artysim is like arguing with creationists... no wait, I think the creationists are more coherant and make more sense.

I didn't say they were, I said you are.

The fact is that there is no humanitarian disaster in Gaza and there wasn't one caused by the "blockade" either. The fact that Jewish groups say that Israel could treat Gaza better doesn't create a disaster in Gaza.

I know BTselem and I also know that their stance on war crimes is not as "liberal" and forgiving (and encouraging) as yours.

The Sunni groups never did have to worry about fighting US forces. You don't know the reality on the ground in Iraq. Saddam's core supporters live in the Tikrit region and still don't cooperate with the US (or anyone, for that matter). The Sunni tribes further west didn't have any particular reason to support Saddam's regime and after Saddam's fall fought mostly Shiite militias, not the US.

I understand. So, because you visited mostly the northern regions as a tourist for (two weeks?) several years after the invasion clearly you are the expert. I bow to your vastly superiour knowledge!

Yes, the hardcore Saddam supporters were centered around Tikrit but there were many other groups that decided to take up arms as well. The reasons for this have more to do with disenfranchisement that could have been completely avoided if the U.S occupation authorities had their act together (which they didn't) and foolhardy moves like disbanding the Iraqi army (most of whom didn't fight the U.S when it entered) -and- debaathification which involved ripping out most of the talented skill necessary for the day to day running of a nation. This created a lot of unemployed, angry folks who were not necessarily strong Saddam supporters but moreso very pissed off at the state of their nation -and- in the possession of weapons and prior military training. This has all been documented very well over the years from several sources.

So, if you're going to argue that the -only- Sunni groups that were fighting the U.S were isolated to either Saddam supporters or foreign groups like AQ, that is false, and it is supported by the fact that it was only once Petraeus sat down and cut a deal with the majority of the Sunni groups, who had tens of thousands of armed fighters, that suddenly attacks against U.S and coalition forces dropped off precipitously.

Look, here's my main point-

IF Saddam had opened up his economy just like Saudi did, or IF his war against Iran had been more succesful, he would still be in power today, there would be no sanctions against him and he'd probably be lauded as a significant ally.

This is not theoretical, but has proven itself over and over again. Augusto Pinochet was tolerated by the west because economically and politically he played ball as desired. Nevermind that he was a monster who had thousands of his people disapeared. The same happened in Argentina, the same is happening right now with "allies" in many of the "stan" countries like Uzbekistan and so forth.

Even Afghanistan is an example of this- back in the late 90's the Taliban were courted diplomatically by the U.S and other western nations as there was the hope of building a major pipeline through the country. Sure, they were oppressing people and fostering terrorist groups in country but so long as they played ball as desired it was all overlooked. Once the big pipeline turned out to be more of a pipe-dream, then suddenly they turned into the bad guys.

History repeats itself!

Even easier than that...if he did invade Kuwait he would have still been in power. Nobody asked him to invade Iran. You think the Saudi economy is open? Those things are/were irrelevant. The first Gulf War exposed him to UN sanctions in which his non-compliance were his downfall.

Who the heck is writing the history books in Canada? The problem in Afghanistan was compound by the US, but hardly of some oil pipeline in the 90's. It was because when the Soviets left in defeat, the US left as well. Little or no interest in the area and this case it came back to bit us. So how do you win? Liberal Canadians criticize you when you do something about it and when you don't.